I think it's a bit of a twisted logic you are on here - you bet for brooklyn to win, so if they win - you get what you your money back. But if warriors win, you lose what you paid for. You simply now a are paying to see the game. And you are paying with marginal returns - if broolyn wins, you don't get back nothing much. And it's bittersweet money. Now if you pay the same amount for warriors win, you get doubly rewarded (seeing that the money line on the game is frankly ridiculous, no way brooklyn without lopez is 70-30 favourites) - you get your money tripled and you get a satisfaction of seeing them win.

so you put money on nets, thinking they (nets) will win. warriors lose, you win change. if you put money on warriors, thinking they will win, but they lose, then you would have payed to see warriors play and saved your moral integrity.if you put money on warriors and warriors win, but you thought nets would win, you won triple the money and been surprised.never bet against your own team - my rule as a fan.my rule as bet junkie - if you don't think your team can win or cover the spread, don't bet on that game.

i hope warriors come out gunning and blow this overhyped team out, like the ny did yesterday to miami. we have better shooters, better pfs and a pg who is on a roll.the only advantage for the nets is homecourt and sf position, but barnes seem to have been able to sweep most predictions under the rug.if ezeli/biedrins can contain blatche to start the game and curry/thompson hit some early threes i see avery johnson going small. lee seems to have been able to contain kris kardashian last time and own him on offense. i don't think landry will be overplayed by teletovic.If we dictate the tempo and push the ball we have all the chances in the world. Certainly nothing so low as 30-70. More like 48-52. So, if i bet on warriors, but they lose, i have payed to see them win, but they simply lost.

martin wrote:so you put money on nets, thinking they (nets) will win. warriors lose, you win change. if you put money on warriors, thinking they will win, but they lose, then you would have payed to see warriors play and saved your moral integrity.if you put money on warriors and warriors win, but you thought nets would win, you won triple the money and been surprised.never bet against your own team - my rule as a fan.my rule as bet junkie - if you don't think your team can win or cover the spread, don't bet on that game.

i hope warriors come out gunning and blow this overhyped team out, like the ny did yesterday to miami. we have better shooters, better pfs and a pg who is on a roll.the only advantage for the nets is homecourt and sf position, but barnes seem to have been able to sweep most predictions under the rug.if ezeli/biedrins can contain blatche to start the game and curry/thompson hit some early threes i see avery johnson going small. lee seems to have been able to contain kris kardashian last time and own him on offense. i don't think landry will be overplayed by teletovic.If we dictate the tempo and push the ball we have all the chances in the world. Certainly nothing so low as 30-70. More like 48-52. So, if i bet on warriors, but they lose, i have payed to see them win, but they simply lost.

No need to complicate it.

Pay to see them win.

If they lose I get extra cash.

I do think the Nets will cover the -6, though. And I am a betting junkie too.

martin wrote:so you put money on nets, thinking they (nets) will win. warriors lose, you win change. if you put money on warriors, thinking they will win, but they lose, then you would have payed to see warriors play and saved your moral integrity.if you put money on warriors and warriors win, but you thought nets would win, you won triple the money and been surprised.never bet against your own team - my rule as a fan.my rule as bet junkie - if you don't think your team can win or cover the spread, don't bet on that game.

i hope warriors come out gunning and blow this overhyped team out, like the ny did yesterday to miami. we have better shooters, better pfs and a pg who is on a roll.the only advantage for the nets is homecourt and sf position, but barnes seem to have been able to sweep most predictions under the rug.if ezeli/biedrins can contain blatche to start the game and curry/thompson hit some early threes i see avery johnson going small. lee seems to have been able to contain kris kardashian last time and own him on offense. i don't think landry will be overplayed by teletovic.If we dictate the tempo and push the ball we have all the chances in the world. Certainly nothing so low as 30-70. More like 48-52. So, if i bet on warriors, but they lose, i have payed to see them win, but they simply lost.

No need to complicate it.

Pay to see them win.

If they lose I get extra cash.

I do think the Nets will cover the -6, though. And I am a betting junkie too.

Ok, just for the sake of not betting against your team. Do you think the warriors won't cover + 12,5? It's 1.35 line for this - same as for the nets win. For that not to happen it would have to pretty much be a blowout game. Do you think we are that bad? So you take the warriors on this one, you still root for them, and if they play a good game, but lose, you still get the money, except betting for the warriors The money line on nets is just very low. And if we can beat clippers at their court, I assume we have a good chance of hanging in with nets.

Certainly the team needs to win this one then, as the Nets only seem to have Deron, JJ and GWall other then Lopez.

Curry and Thompson can neutralize dwill and Johnson in pts, Wallace > Barnes, but our advantage comes from Lee. We need to make the best of games against teams missing key bigs while ours is out. Or we could just recognize that they are the better team and elect to to not play the game... no wait, stern wouldn't have that... never said it was going to be easy, but without Lopez this game is more winnable.

warriorsstepup wrote:Nets have been playing well lately, should be a challenging game. I remember the first game they had us in the first half, but we came back the 2nd half and blew them away.

Its been mentioned many times but the warriors always seem to start slow.

Detroit game's start was very good (as well as third quarter) pushing the ball, getting open shots, taking shots in transition, letting curry shoot stepping into the point while coming down court. And high picks as well. Our shooters, curry and thompson are much better suited to shoot off the high picks than just keep runing through multiple screens. For one, their feet are better set because they don't have to turn around coming of screens and thus win extra time to have their bodies prepared for shot. Plus, they get less tired, and can play better defense and log more minutes. And there's nothing like seeing couple of balls thread the net for a shooter. Hopefully this becomes the trend.